Virginia Militia Muster Call in Preparation of a Possible Defense of Citizens’ Rights and Liberties

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
17,118
Likes
10,861
Why don't you tell me how states arent ignoring Heller and McDonald?

This threads premise is based off a law that goes directly against these cases. And here we are with a lot of people completely ignoring them.
You're the one that has asserted that there are states ignoring it so by all means.....show us which states are denying that RKBA is an individual right/etc in contradiction with the courts decision
 

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
17,151
Likes
5,610
You're the one that has asserted that there are states ignoring it so by all means.....show us which states are denying that RKBA is an individual right/etc in contradiction with the courts decision
Heller says firearms in the common use cant be banned. McDonald said that Heller applies to the states.

Shit tons of people regularly support bans on common use firearms. Every state with an AWB is breaking it. As are ones with other types of rosters, etc.
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
2,906
Likes
3,161
Location
RI
You're the one that has asserted that there are states ignoring it so by all means.....show us which states are denying that RKBA is an individual right/etc in contradiction with the courts decision
Easy - Mass's LTC system, RI's pistol Blue Card system, IL's FID, NC has a permits to purchase handguns, CT Pistol Permits, and those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head. Hightower was supposed to be the post-McDonald case that would end Mass's LTC system but obviously that didn't work. As far as I know, no one's challenged RI's Blue Card system in court.

You're not seeing the potential of Heller and McDonald: its going to take generations for those cases to make a serious difference in places outside total ban zones like DC used to be. Once courts starts applying strict scrutiny to the 2nd Amendment, then we're going to really see those cases take off. And liberal courts aren't going to do that until they're dragged kicking and screaming to doing so, like the Mass SJC and Caetano II.

Edit:

When you poke around into laws like Mass's LTC system, or NC's pistol purchase permit, they all pre-date Heller and McDonald. Mass has had LTCs since 1906. Back then, SCOTUS was much more anti-gun and Cruikshank was still the prevailing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
17,151
Likes
5,610
You're not seeing the potential of Heller and McDonald: its going to take generations for those cases to make a serious difference in places outside total ban zones like DC used to be. Once courts starts applying strict scrutiny to the 2nd Amendment, then we're going to really see those cases take off. And liberal courts aren't going to do that until they're dragged kicking and screaming to doing so, like the Mass SJC and Caetano II.
Unfortunately the value of the 2A for a community to form a militia is going to be gone in a few generations. When wars can be fought with machines the ability to provide a deterrent via a militia is going to start to fade fast.

The times now for it. Except SCOTUS doesn't want to talk about it, and even super majority (R) governments do nothing of substance. I've always thought that our only chance was via court. Now that SCOTUS pretends 2A isn't a hot topic I've lost faith in that. Especially considering how many retarded cases they regularly hear while avoiding controversial ones or worse, handing down draconian rulings which they've done a lot of post 9/11.
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
2,906
Likes
3,161
Location
RI
Unfortunately the value of the 2A for a community to form a militia is going to be gone in a few generations. When wars can be fought with machines the ability to provide a deterrent via a militia is going to start to fade fast.

The times now for it. Except SCOTUS doesn't want to talk about it, and even super majority (R) governments do nothing of substance. I've always thought that our only chance was via court. Now that SCOTUS pretends 2A isn't a hot topic I've lost faith in that. Especially considering how many retarded cases they regularly hear while avoiding controversial ones or worse, handing down draconian rulings which they've done a lot of post 9/11.
Two things:

(1) "The militia" is a societal safety valve. Militias aren't effective in outright combat between themselves and regular forces. Look back at any asymmetrical warfare, including the American Revolution, and militia serve as second-line troops that support the main insurgent force. We had the Minutemen, North Vietnam had the Viet Cong, General de Gaulle had the French Resistance, etc. Never underestimate the power of pissed off people.

(2) I think the NYC case currently up at SCOTUS is going to be instructive about the future of 2A activism. That iron is in the furnace now. Let's see where that goes before going all doom and gloom.
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
2,906
Likes
3,161
Location
RI
To add: the main strategic benefit of a militia in the sense of asymmetric warfare is having eyes and ears on the ground. Intelligence gathering, sabotage, assassinations, stuff like that. Militias are one piece of a larger insurgency. The notion of a militia as the maintainers of civic order is about 200 years obsolete. What the militia can do instead is be an unseen army that provides a professional force more information and support than would otherwise exist.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
17,118
Likes
10,861
Heller says firearms in the common use cant be banned. McDonald said that Heller applies to the states.

Shit tons of people regularly support bans on common use firearms. Every state with an AWB is breaking it. As are ones with other types of rosters, etc.
Seems to me that you have more reading to do


It saddens me to say that the majority left the door wide open and split the baby in its ruling.......leaving it up to a future court to be more specific

You can cherry pick all you want but the core argument and preponderance of what the majority wrote is clear as mud beyond the fact that an all out bad like what Chigago had done was unconstitutional

The court ruled that a ban on handguns went too far

I would expect them to say the same if al rifles had been banned by chicago or other city/state

Beyond that they were ambiguous

thomas said:
MCDONALD v. CHICAGO Opinion of THOMAS, J. I In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___ (2008), this Court held that the Second Amendment protects anindividual right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, striking down a District of Columbia ordi-nance that banned the possession of handguns in thehome. Id., at __ (slip op., at 64). The question in this case is whether the Constitution protects that right againstabridgment by the States.
alito said:
Opinion of the Court 44 MCDONALD v. CHICAGO Opinion of ALITO, J. Third, JUSTICE BREYER is correct that incorporation ofthe Second Amendment right will to some extent limit the legislative freedom of the States, but this is always true when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated. Incorpora-tion always restricts experimentation and local variations, but that has not stopped the Court from incorporatingvirtually every other provision of the Bill of Rights. “[T]heenshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” Heller, 554 U. S., at __ (slip op., at 64). This conclusion is no more remarkable with respect to the Second Amendment than it is withrespect to all the other limitations on state power found inthe Constitution. Finally, JUSTICE BREYER is incorrect that incorporationwill require judges to assess the costs and benefits offirearms restrictions and thus to make difficult empiricaljudgments in an area in which they lack expertise. As we have noted, while his opinion in Heller recommended an interest-balancing test, the Court specifically rejected thatsuggestion. See supra, at 38–39. “The very enumerationof the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide ona case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 62–63). * * * In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protectsthe right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights thatprotects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Governmentand the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amend-ment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the

Opinion of the Court 45 Cite as: 561 U. S. ____ (2010) Opinion of ALITO, J. Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded forfurther proceedings. It is so ordered.
aliton said:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recog-nized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our hold-ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatorymeasures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying
Opinion of the Court 40 MCDONALD v. CHICAGO Opinion of ALITO, J. of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-fications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.
alito said:
As noted by the 38 States that have appeared in this case as amici supporting petitioners, “tate andlocal experimentation with reasonable firearms regula-tions will continue under the Second Amendment.” Brief for State of Texas et al. as Amici Curiae 23.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
17,118
Likes
10,861
The times now for it. Except SCOTUS doesn't want to talk about it, and even super majority (R) governments do nothing of substance. I've always thought that our only chance was via court. Now that SCOTUS pretends 2A isn't a hot topic I've lost faith in that. Especially considering how many retarded cases they regularly hear while avoiding controversial ones or worse, handing down draconian rulings which they've done a lot of post 9/11.
This I mostly agree with

Historically speaking, the cases that SCOTUS takes are already largely decided in the realm of public opinion and they are just dotting the i and crossing the t......

I think now IS the time to push and push and push.....

Not just on 2A but on due process/ex parte in general......how can you have "Due Process" when the judge makes a decision "from one side".......then "allows" the aggrieved party to come back after harm is done and gives them a costly attempt to "Change the judges mind"......

This isnt due process......its an appeal
 

Dench

NES Member
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
17,151
Likes
5,610
Seems to me that you have more reading to do


It saddens me to say that the majority left the door wide open and split the baby in its ruling.......leaving it up to a future court to be more specific

You can cherry pick all you want but the core argument and preponderance of what the majority wrote is clear as mud beyond the fact that an all out bad like what Chigago had done was unconstitutional

The court ruled that a ban on handguns went too far

I would expect them to say the same if al rifles had been banned by chicago or other city/state

Beyond that they were ambiguous
Yep. I've been saying that for a long time also. Many "good" SCOTUS cases are written intentionally poorly and or vague. Heller is a really good example of this. Everyone on that court knows that no one knows what the f*** "common use" even means. Not that it matters, because MA's AG admitted that AR's were in the common use despite the ban on them. But since courts don't want to touch it, no one cares who has the ability to correct it.

Even anti 2A cases like Miller went on to say what exactly was allowed under the 2A, which was what a solider would be using in war. And at that time since the military wasnt using short barreled shotguns, SCOTUS found the NFA to be legit. That's not exactly the level of scrutiny that's going on now, thats for sure.

Using the standard used in an anti 2A case like Miller, the 1986 ban on MG's is 100% illegal, as is any sort of magazine ban for weapons used by domestic forces.
 
Top Bottom